An inquiry has been launched into the impartiality of the judge presiding over the matter of Fogel v. Farmers, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.

This inquiry was launched following a review of Consumer Dogwatch legal team’s motion to disqualify Judge William Highberger (See http://goo.gl/FGSNB ) , as well as unsubstantiated allegations concerning Judge Highberger, Carolyn Kuhl-Highberger, and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.

According to sources familiar with the situation, the inquiry will examine the possibility of tacit involvement by Judge Highberger in the circumstances surrounding concurrent representation by the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps.

Specifically, despite their respective roles as counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in Fogel v. Farmers, Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps entered into a separate agreement by which Skadden Arps and partner Thomas Nolan represented Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi before the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In re Girardi following the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of an order to show cause why Girardi & Keese, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, Thomas Girardi, and Walter Lack should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise sanctioned as a result of the massive fraud which took place in litigation pursued by them against Dole Food Company.

The Leslie Brodie Report (TLR) is carefully following developments relating to the case of Benjamin Fogel vs. Farmers Group, Inc. currently pending before the Los Angeles Superior Court. We will provide coverage and post updates as they become available.

— Opposition to Objection by State of Montana Submitted to the Court on August 24, 2011.

— Said opposition presently not part of court documents posted on official settlement website.

— Plans underway for formal motion to intervene and vacate any judgment which doesn’t address, in a meaningful way, issues relating to the concurrent representation.

TLR has learned an ethics complaint alleging multiple acts of misconduct has been filed with the State Bar of California against attorneys from the firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Girardi & Keese.

Knowledgeable sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintain the complaint alleges that ethical breaches took place as a result of Skadden Arps’ representation of Girardi & Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi because, at the same time, Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps were on opposing sides in the case of Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc.

According to the sources, the parties named in the complaint are Raoul Kennedy, Thomas Nolan, and Richard Zurmoski of Skadden Arps as well as Graham LippSmith and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.

The complaint alleges that in August 2003, Walter Lack (of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack) and Thomas Girardi and Graham LippSmith (of Girardi & Keese) filed a class action suit on behalf of plaintiffs Benjamin Fogel against Farmers Group, Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit — which is still pending and is anticipated to settle in September 2011 — was defended by attorneys from Skadden Arps (Raoul Kennedy and Richard Zurmoski).

Despite their respective roles as plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants’ counsel in Fogel v. Farmers, Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps entered into an agreement by which Skadden Arps and partner Thomas Nolan would represent Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi before the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In re Girardi following the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of an order to show cause why Girardi & Keese, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, Thomas Girardi, and Walter Lack should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise sanctioned as a result of the massive fraud which took place in litigation pursued by them against Dole Food Company.

On July 13, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued an order suspending Walter Lack for a period of six months and reprimanding Girardi; the order also imposed almost $500,000 in monetary sanctions against the two attorneys.

On July 14 2010, in an attempt to conceal their attorney-client relationship, Skadden Arps and Thomas Nolan filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit asking for their names to be redacted from the published opinion.

According to sources, including TLR’s legal correspondent — known as State Bar Insider (“SBI”) — the arrangement described above is disfavored and unethical; moreover, for such a reltionship to be authorized, Thomas Girardi was required to notify each member of the class he represents about his status as a client of Skadden Arps, and seek a waiver and obtain approval from his clients.

According to SBI, “on its face and based of my reading of “Freivogel on Conflicts,” it appears that Tom Girardi violated his duty of loyalty and zealousness as well as the duty of candor to his clients — the class that he allegedly represents.”

Moreover, according to sources, Skadden Arps has also violated multiple ethical rules and statutes by agreeing to undertake the representation of Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi.

A separate source stated: “Assume for the sake of argument that Skadden Arps feels a motion for sanction is warranted against Mr. Girardi in Fogel v. Farmers. Taking such action would require Skadden to be directly adverse to its client (Thomas Girardi) in the matter of In Re Girardi.”

Moreover, according to SBI, he never heard of a practice by which counsel is asking a court to redact her or his name from a published opinion. “They obviously were attempting to conceal the relationship, and now I am fairly certain as to why it was done,” SBI concluded.

Knowledgeable sources maintain that the ethics complaint seeks the removal of Thomas Girardi’s name from the roll of members of the State Bar of California, and asks that multiple years of actual suspension be imposed on Graham LippSmith, Raoul Kennedy, Thomas Nolan, and Richard Zurmoski.

TLR has learned an ethics complaint alleging multiple acts of misconduct has been filed with the State Bar of California against attorneys from the firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &amp; Flom LLP and Girardi &amp; Keese.

Knowledgeable sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintain the complaint alleges that ethical breaches took place as a result of Skadden Arps’ representation of Girardi &amp; Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi because, at the same time, Girardi &amp; Keese and Skadden Arps were on opposing sides in the case of Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc.

According to the sources, the parties named in the complaint are Raoul Kennedy, Thomas Nolan, and Richard Zurmoski of Skadden Arps as well as Graham LippSmith and Thomas Girardi of Girardi &amp; Keese.

The complaint alleges that in August 2003, Walter Lack (of Engstrom, Lipscomb &amp; Lack) and Thomas Girardi and Graham LippSmith (of Girardi &amp; Keese) filed a class action suit on behalf of plaintiffs Benjamin Fogel against Farmers Group, Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit — which is still pending and is anticipated to settle in September 2011 — was defended by attorneys from Skadden Arps (Raoul Kennedy and Richard Zurmoski).

Despite their respective roles as plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants’ counsel in Fogel v. Farmers, Girardi &amp; Keese and Skadden Arps entered into an agreement by which Skadden Arps and partner Thomas Nolan would represent Girardi &amp; Keese and Thomas Girardi before the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In re Girardi following the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of an order to show cause why Girardi &amp; Keese, Engstrom Lipscomb &amp; Lack, Thomas Girardi, and Walter Lack should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise sanctioned as a result of the massive fraud which took place in litigation pursued by them against Dole Food Company.

On July 13, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued an order suspending Walter Lack for a period of six months and reprimanding Girardi; the order also imposed almost $500,000 in monetary sanctions against the two attorneys.

On July 14 2010, in an attempt to conceal their attorney-client relationship, Skadden Arps and Thomas Nolan filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit asking for their names to be redacted from the published opinion.

According to sources, including TLR’s legal correspondent — known as State Bar Insider (“SBI”) — the arrangement described above is disfavored and unethical; moreover, for such a reltionship to be authorized, Thomas Girardi was required to notify each member of the class he represents about his status as a client of Skadden Arps, and seek a waiver and obtain approval from his clients.

According to SBI, “on its face and based of my reading of “Freivogel on Conflicts,” it appears that Tom Girardi violated his duty of loyalty and zealousness as well as the duty of candor to his clients — the class that he allegedly represents.”

Moreover, according to sources, Skadden Arps has also violated multiple ethical rules and statutes by agreeing to undertake the representation of Girardi &amp; Keese and Thomas Girardi.

A separate source stated: “Assume for the sake of argument that Skadden Arps feels a motion for sanction is warranted against Mr. Girardi in Fogel v. Farmers. Taking such action would require Skadden to be directly adverse to its client (Thomas Girardi) in the matter of In Re Girardi.”

Moreover, according to SBI, he never heard of a practice by which counsel is asking a court to redact her or his name from a published opinion. “They obviously were attempting to conceal the relationship, and now I am fairly certain as to why it was done,” SBI concluded.

Knowledgeable sources maintain that the ethics complaint seeks the removal of Thomas Girardi’s name from the roll of members of the State Bar of California, and asks that multiple years of actual suspension be imposed on Graham LippSmith, Raoul Kennedy, Thomas Nolan, and Richard Zurmoski.

Categories

This story is late in publishing because the AOC (ahem, the judicial council) spent months drawing out our requests for information on a simple inquiry they should have been able to deliver on the same day it was received because what scant information they did provide was readily available to them. But they dragged out […]

More false promises of tunnels reaching out from jails to courthouses. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so because we’ve stated many times that ALL tunnel promises are false promises made to win local support of the projects and penciled out upon approval. What we find most disturbing is that Clifford Ham has a track […]

Welcome to 2017! Yeah, we know, a bit of time has passed since we’ve been hyperactive here. We’ve been a bit busy frying other fish. If you consider yourself a progressive, you’ve already read and possibly even recognized our work elsewhere. We will be continuing those projects and check in here as not to neglect […]

Thanks to the sheer incompetence of Judicial Council staff leadership, we’re going to be spending the next ten years nipping at their heels. Last week, the San Francisco trial court ruled that the Jacobs entities maintained their contractors license and that the 22.7 million that the Judicial Council should have been able to recover is […]

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows […]